Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Applicant elects Group I, ethylene sulfate for the organic additive, aluminum oxide for the inorganic material layer material, polyvinylidene fluoride for the binder, polypropylene for the substrate material in the reply filed on 9/1/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-15 are withdrawn.
It is noted that claims 9 and 10 are drawn to non-elected species, and are hereby withdrawn also.
Full consideration was given to claims 1-8, 11, 12.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed 9/11/2026, 1/8/2025, 2/28/2024 has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings received 2/28/2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
The term “optionally” is confusing since it is not clear as to whether the limitation that proceeds the term “optionally” is meant to be recited in a positive manner or not.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katayama (US 2009/0325058) in view of Adams (US 2020/0161618).
Regarding claim 1, Katayama discloses a composite separator for a secondary battery, characterized by comprising a substrate [0026].
Regarding claim 7, characterized in that, the inorganic material layer comprises at least one selected from aluminum oxide [0046].
Regarding claim 12, characterized in that, the substrate is made of polypropylene [0033].
Regarding claim 1, Katayama does not disclose a solid organic additive layer provided on at least one surface of the substrate, the solid organic additive layer comprising an organic additive for an electrolyte solution. Adams teaches a separator having a coating comprising electrolyte additives [0037, 0090]. The electrolyte additive may be any additive typically added by battery makers, particularly lithium battery makers to improve battery performance. the electrolyte additive is at least one selected from the group consisting of a SEI improving agent, a cathode protection agent, a flame retardant additive, LiPF.sub.6 salt stabilizer, an overcharge protector, an aluminum corrosion inhibitor, a lithium deposition agent or improver, or a solvation enhancer, an aluminum corrosion inhibitor, a wetting agent, and a viscosity improver [0080]. A coating comprises PVDF and the additive [0057].
Regarding claim 3, characterized in that, the solid organic additive layer has a thickness of 0.5-5 μm [0059].
Regarding claim 8, characterized in that, the solid organic additive layer further comprises a binder, and optionally, the binder is selected from at least one of polyvinylidene fluoride [0057].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to add a layer of electrolyte additive to the separator of Katayama, as taught by Adams, for the benefit of improving the performance of the battery.
Regarding claim 4, characterized in that, in the solid organic additive layer, a content of the organic additive for an electrolyte solution is 0.01 to 10 mg/cm2, Adams teaches the amount of additive is also not so limited, and may be from 500 to 50,000 ppm [0065]. performance. The effect of an additive may be determined by plotting capacity (mAh) vs. cycle index [0066]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the amount of Adam’s additive for the benefit of ensuring the battery performance is enhanced.
Regarding claim 6, Katayama discloses that, an inorganic material layer is provided [0026]. The combination of Katayama and Adams reads on the inorganic material layer is “further provided between the substrate and the solid organic additive layer.”
Claims 2, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katayama (US 2009/0325058) in view of Adams (US 2020/0161618) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Kim (US 2016/0028115).
Regarding claim 11, Adams teaches that the binder comprises polyvinylidene fluoride [0057].
Regarding claims 2, 11, Katayama modified by Adams teaches an organic additive, but does not teach the organic additive for an electrolyte solution is ethylene sulfate. Kim teaches an organic electrolyte additive for a lithium ion battery comprising ethylene sulfate. The additive may improve output characteristics at high and low temperatures and may prevent a swelling phenomenon by suppressing the decomposition of PF6− on the surface of a cathode, which may occur during a high-temperature cycle of a lithium secondary battery including the electrolyte solution additive, and preventing an oxidation reaction of an electrolyte solution. See Abstract.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to use ethylene sulfate as the electrolyte additive of Katayama modified by Adams, as taught by Kim, for the benefit of having good high and low temperature characteristics.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katayama (US 2009/0325058) in view of Adams (US 2020/0161618) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Minami (US 2011/0206962).
Regarding claim 5, Katayama modified by Adams does not disclose a surface roughness of the substrate is 3 μm≤Ra≤10 μm. Minami teaches a separator substrate a separator interposed therebetween, and a protective layer constituted of inorganic oxide and an insulative binding agent provided on a surface of the negative electrode plate. The arithmetic mean surface roughness Ra of a face of the separator that contacts with the protective layer is 0.40 to 3.50 μm. With the invention, a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery is obtained that has enhanced formability of the flattened electrode assembly and superior output characteristics and other battery characteristics. See Abstract. Controlling the arithmetic mean surface roughness Ra of the face of the separator that contacts with the protective layer formed on the negative electrode plate, it is possible to enhance the adhesion between the separator and the protective layer and thereby to improve the formability of the electrode assembly [0017].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to form the separator substrate of Katayama with a surface roughness, as taught by Minami, and adjust the surface roughness depending on the desired adhesion between the separator substrate and the inorganic oxide layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CYNTHIA KYUNG SOO WALLS whose telephone number is (571)272-8699. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F until 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1292. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CYNTHIA K WALLS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights